Enlightenment and morality

Discussion of the nature of Ultimate Reality and the path to Enlightenment.
Locked
RZoo
Posts: 97
Joined: Mon Jun 16, 2014 5:26 am

Enlightenment and morality

Post by RZoo »

I hope we can all agree that moral values are not truthful or logical or "absolute" and therefore that they are delusions.

So... is enlightenment purely about "truth" and logic, ie. amoral? Or is it inherently linked with a specific morality? For example, it often seems to be linked with compassion for some party, perhaps the "unenlightened", the idea that everyone ought to be enlightened, and also with values of peace, love, and harmony.

[I've posed this question too many times in other threads, so now I'm creating a thread just to discuss it.]
Pam Seeback
Posts: 2619
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 10:40 pm

Re: Enlightenment and morality

Post by Pam Seeback »

RZoo: I hope we can all agree that moral values are not truthful or logical or "absolute" and therefore that they are delusions.
Your hope for agreement is not only a weak opening argument, it smacks of emotional manipulation. Also, take a close look at your statement above. The mind simply cannot help itself. It speaks using absolute terms (i.e., your assertion "are not truthful") in the same breath that it rejects or denies absoluteness.
So... is enlightenment purely about "truth" and logic, ie. amoral? Or is it inherently linked with a specific morality? For example, it often seems to be linked with compassion for some party, perhaps the "unenlightened", the idea that everyone ought to be enlightened, and also with values of peace, love, and harmony.
Logic will bring you to discover the truth about the nature of reality, which is, to use your own term, the absence of a-thing-in-itself. So there you find yourself, thanks to logic, at meditative point zero. Nothing to grab hold of, no absolute (universal) value anywhere to be seen. So whaddya do? You can go into the feeling state of point zero, bliss (a worthy experience in its own right) but since reasoning is required to keep one's mind and body alive, remaining in bliss meditation is not a practical solution. So, back to my original question...whaddya do when you reach point zero? As I see it, the only sane/logical thing to do is to reason a value (a philosophy) for yourself based on your discovery of point zero, and if it is your will, to argue the logic and saneness of your point zero philosophy with others of contrasting views.
RZoo
Posts: 97
Joined: Mon Jun 16, 2014 5:26 am

Re: Enlightenment and morality

Post by RZoo »

movingalways wrote:Logic will bring you to discover the truth about the nature of reality, which is, to use your own term, the absence of a-thing-in-itself. So there you find yourself, thanks to logic, at meditative point zero. Nothing to grab hold of, no absolute (universal) value anywhere to be seen.
So we're in agreement that enlightenment is amoral (there is no absolute [moral] value anywhere to be seen). It is only beyond enlightenment (post-enlightenment) that morality can resurface, and enlightenment itself is not connected to any specific set of post-enlightenment values.
movingalways wrote:So whaddya do? You can go into the feeling state of point zero, bliss (a worthy experience in its own right) but since reasoning is required to keep one's mind and body alive, remaining in bliss meditation is not a practical solution.
At "point zero", on the pinnacle of "truth", one shouldn't have an arbitrary bias toward/value of staying alive (or practicality); it should only be sustainable in a hospital bed. (You'll recognize the analogy from another thread; I just wanted to clarify where it fits in this picture.)
movingalways wrote:So, back to my original question...whaddya do when you reach point zero? As I see it, the only sane/logical thing to do is to reason a value (a philosophy) for yourself based on your discovery of point zero, and if it is your will, to argue the logic and saneness of your point zero philosophy with others of contrasting views.
One more caveat here: one doesn't reason a value for himself so much as he reasons against his irrational value of truth and reason above all else, which allows him to accept "irrational" elements and "delusions" (from the perspective of truthfulness) back into himself. It is in this view that I see enlightenment as a process of healing (the disease: the value of truth above all). The values that happen to come to him (I wouldn't call them reasoned) will determine (likely via further reasoning) what morality or philosophy he might take on.
Pam Seeback
Posts: 2619
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 10:40 pm

Re: Enlightenment and morality

Post by Pam Seeback »

RZoo: So we're in agreement that enlightenment is amoral (there is no absolute [moral] value anywhere to be seen). It is only beyond enlightenment (post-enlightenment) that morality can resurface, and enlightenment itself is not connected to any specific set of post-enlightenment values.
Agreed.
At "point zero", on the pinnacle of "truth", one shouldn't have an arbitrary bias toward/value of staying alive (or practicality); it should only be sustainable in a hospital bed. (You'll recognize the analogy from another thread; I just wanted to clarify where it fits in this picture.)
I am not saying that one should have an arbitrary bias toward staying alive only that if they choose to stay alive, to remain conscious, reasoning is what is required.
One more caveat here: one doesn't reason a value for himself so much as he reasons against his irrational value of truth and reason above all else, which allows him to accept "irrational" elements and "delusions" (from the perspective of truthfulness) back into himself. It is in this view that I see enlightenment as a process of healing (the disease: the value of truth above all). The values that happen to come to him (I wouldn't call them reasoned) will determine (likely via further reasoning) what morality or philosophy he might take on.
I wouldn't define the value of truth above all as a disease, more of a world shattering, which does require a "putting back together again" or a healing, which does include, as you say, "irrational" elements and "delusions". There is a story attributed to the Buddha of the raft of irrational things a man must sit upon for the sake of reasoning's fire before he safely arrives on the shore of (only) reasoning, things of faith and belief and metaphor and myth (things of mysticism and magic): the spiritual imagination at work.

If the values or philosophy that come during the process of construction are not reasoned, then by what process do they come?
RZoo
Posts: 97
Joined: Mon Jun 16, 2014 5:26 am

Re: Enlightenment and morality

Post by RZoo »

movingalways wrote:I wouldn't define the value of truth above all as a disease, more of a world shattering, which does require a "putting back together again" or a healing, which does include, as you say, "irrational" elements and "delusions".
Calling it a disease is a harsh metaphor, you're right; I just don't want it to be glorified as somehow inherently better than irrationality - that itself is just an irrational belief and value judgement. We happen to share this value judgement, but many people don't.
movingalways wrote:There is a story attributed to the Buddha of the raft of irrational things a man must sit upon for the sake of reasoning's fire before he safely arrives on the shore of (only) reasoning, things of faith and belief and metaphor and myth (things of mysticism and magic): the spiritual imagination at work.
I don't like that story. What's the "shore of (only) reasoning"? Does that imply a shore without irrational things? But reasoning is only useful when combined with irrational things! (Not to mention that using reasoning itself is irrational.) Any "pure" reasoning is pointless: it tells us nothing except what was already inherent in our definitions to begin with.

A. That is a wolf (by definition)
B. A wolf kills humans when they sleep (by definition)
A+B: That wolf will kill me when I sleep

That's pure reasoning; it doesn't tell us anything that wasn't inherent in the original definitions. Now let's add some irrational elements.

A. That is a wolf (by definition)
B. A wolf kills humans when they sleep (by definition)
C. Being killed is bad (value judgement)
A+B: I should not sleep

Now we've used reason to enhance our own survival utility, which is probably why reason evolved in the first place (from an evolutionary perspective). "Being killed is bad" is not "true", it's merely an arbitrary, irrational value judgement or belief that will be disputed between individuals.

The desire for truth above all is interesting infliction of suffering. In the end (enlightenment), man discovers that truth is a chimera, that it can't be the highest value, and that reasoning is only a tool which, by itself, would be useless.
movingalways wrote:If the values or philosophy that come during the process of construction are not reasoned, then by what process do they come?
I don't know... maybe they just pop into our minds, or maybe they are innate in our subconscious biology?

Why does one value staying alive? You'll say it's reasoned because they need to stay alive to accomplish X. So why do they value X? Is X a core value, or will you reason that it's because of Y? If the latter, then why do they value Y? At bottom, values can't be reasoned, they simply things that we irrationally believe in.
Pam Seeback
Posts: 2619
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 10:40 pm

Re: Enlightenment and morality

Post by Pam Seeback »

RZoo: At bottom, values can't be reasoned, they simply things that we irrationally believe in.
I agree that values are irrational beliefs, but that while they are being reasoned they are not considered as such, that instead, they are believed to be one's in-the-moment reality. Goes back to what I said about the mind using absolutes in the same sentience it denies their existence.

Time for an irrational laugh or a long irrational glass of irrational wine, or both. If I opt for both, and I'm in the mood to stay alive, the wolf best not show up. :-)
User avatar
ardy
Posts: 341
Joined: Tue Oct 29, 2013 6:44 am

Re: Enlightenment and morality

Post by ardy »

movingalways wrote:
RZoo: At bottom, values can't be reasoned, they simply things that we irrationally believe in.
I agree that values are irrational beliefs, but that while they are being reasoned they are not considered as such, that instead, they are believed to be one's in-the-moment reality. Goes back to what I said about the mind using absolutes in the same sentience it denies their existence.

Time for an irrational laugh or a long irrational glass of irrational wine, or both. If I opt for both, and I'm in the mood to stay alive, the wolf best not show up. :-)
rzoo - why would you attach reason to what is the constant movement of human ideas? If you question someones values, then you will realise they DO NOT see them as irrational. Even though if you speak to them in 10 years those values will almost certainly be eclipsed by new ones. One side of the floating world I guess.

MA - agree wine is the best antidote to over thinking. Not sure about the wolf but there is nothing like excitement to wake us up.
Locked